(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina tobacco report [serial]"

TOBACCO 
REPORT 

f965-f966 




THE BULLETIN 

of the 
North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

James A. Graham, Commissioner 
Number 183 April, 1966 



FOREWORD 

The seventeenth annual issue of the North Carolina 
Tobacco Report has been compiled and prepared by 
J. H. Cyrus, in charge of the Tobacco Marketing Sec- 
tion, and Roger L. Mozingo, tobacco specialist, Divi- 
sion of Markets of the North Carolina Department of 
Agriculture, in cooperation with the U. S. Department 
of Agriculture under the AMA Matching Fund Pro- 
gram. 

Credit is due the Cooperative Crop Reporting Ser- 
vice of the North Carolina and United States Depart- 
ments of Agriculture, the U. S. Tobacco Division 
Agricultural Marketing Service and the Agricultural 
Stabilization Conservation Service for their contri- 
butions. 

This issue of the Tobacco Report is dedicated to 
Wendell Phillip Hedrick vi^ho retired December 31, 
1965, after more than 28 years of service as head of 
the Tobacco Marketing Section. His vi^ide experience 
and broad knowledge of tobacco around the world has 
contributed much to the welfare of tobacco farmers 
and the tobacco industry as a whole. 




Cy^uJ^. 



Commissioner of Agriculture 



W. p. Hedrick Retires 




W. p. (Phil) Hedrick 
wlio headed the Tobacco 
Marketing Section of the 
North Carolina Depart- 
ment of Agriculture for 28 
years retired on December 
31, 1965. He came to the 
Department in 1937 as its 
first Tobacco Marketing 
Specialist and organized 
the Tobacco Section. Hed- 
rick served continuously in 
this position except for two 
years of Army service dur- 
ing World War II. 

During his years with 
the Department of Agricul- ^- >"• Hedrick 

ture, Hedrick helped tobacco farmers solve many problems and 
crises related to the marketing of tobacco. Following World War 
II, he was instrumental in organizing the Tobacco Advisory 
Council under the authority given the N. C. Department of 
Agriculture by the General Statutes. The purpose of this Council 
was to bring together agricultural and related leaders who had 
an interest in the welfare of the tobacco industry so that prob- 
lems related to tobacco could be dealt with on an industry-wide 
basis. 

He was Executive Secretary of the Tobacco Advisory Council, 
Secretary of the Tobacco Tax Council and member of the Board 
of Tobacco Growers Information Committee. He also held mem- 
berships in the N. C. Farm Bureau Federation and the N. C. 
State Grange. 

Mr. Hedrick is a native of Taylorsville, North Carolina. He 
graduated from George Washington University in 1918 with an 
A.B. degree in chemistry, and served in World War I in the 
U. S. Army Gas Defense Corps. Following the first world war, 
he was employed by the British American Tobacco Company in 
foreign service. His first ten years with this company were spent 
in China and Korea where he was employed to locate suitable 
territory for the cultivation of flue-cured tobacco. From 1929 



to 1933 he was assistant factory manager in Venezuela, Panama 
and Costa Rica. 

In 1933 Hedrick became associated with the Farm Credit 
Administration in Puerto Rica where he was in charge of crop 
loans. He continued in this position until 1937, when he re- 
turned to the United States and joined the N. C. Department 
of Agriculture. 

Mr. Hedrick is now associated with the Progressive Farmer 
as an editorial tobacco consultant. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

W. P. Hedrick Retires 3 

Flue-Cured Tobacco Outlook, 1966 5 

Burley Tobacco Outlook, 1966 9 

Marketing Flue-Cured Tobacco Under Acreage-Poundage Quotas 10 

State Summary, 1965-66 14 

North Carolina Tobacco Warehouse Sales Report, 1965-66 16 

Summary of Dealer and Warehouse Resales, 1965 18 

Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured Tobacco By States, 1965 18 

Stabilization Receipts by Belts, 1965 , 19 

Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19 

Burley Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19 

North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops, 1919-1965 20 

North Carolina Burley Crops, 1928-1965 21 

North Carolina Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments, 1966 22 

North Carolina Burley Tobacco Allotments, 1966 24 
North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses and Operators 

By Belts and Markets 25 

Domestic Cigarette Consumption By Kinds, 1965 Back Cover 



For free distribution by the Tobacco Section, 
Markets Division, North Carolina Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Raleigh, N. C. 



4/66— 6M 

4 



Flue-Cured Situation and Outlook 1966 

Flue-cured tobacco farmers had a new experience during 1965 
as they produced and marketed their first crop under the acreage- 
poundage program. A year that started out with much grumbling 
and dissatisfaction among farmers toward acreage-poundage 
quotas found most growers happier with the program by the 
time the marlteting season had come to a close. 

One thing that created a better feeling toward the new pro- 
gram was the fact that a large percentage of the flue-cured 
growers came up short of their 1965 quotas. So they were able 
to salvage and bring forward to 1966 approximately 96 million 
pounds of quota that would have been lost forever under the 
old acreage program. The amount of over-marketing into the 
10 percent overage was only about 27 million pounds according 
to the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 

In evaluating the first marketing season under acreage-pound- 
age quotas, it is generally agreed that the program operated 
very satisfactorily. The record shows that the smoking qualities 
and usability of the offerings were the best in a number of 
years. There was also an increase in buyer demand and accept- 
ability of the crop that resulted in a $6 per hundred increase in 
average price over the previous year. The acreage-poundage 
program definitely improved the attitude and confidence of the 
domestic and export buyers toward U. S. flue-cured tobacco, and 
started the whole tobacco program moving in the right direction 
again. 

Supply Decreases 

The 1965-66 total flue-cured supply of 3,615 million pounds 
is down about four percent from the record 1964-65 level of 
3,774 million pounds. This drop in total supply of 159 million 
pounds represents the first improvement in the flue-cured sur- 
plus since 1961. 

The supply of 3,615 million pounds is still just slightly short 
of a three-year supply compared to the current domestic and 
export disappearance. Based on the 1965 experience, it will 
take several years yet to bring the total supply back to a normal 
2.5 years level. However, with quotas based on poundage, the 
supply can be more effectively kept in line with demand. So 
there is no reason why the surplus should not be cleared up over 
a period of about three years. In fact, the carryover of flue-cured 



I 



at the beginning of the new market year on July 1, 1966, will 
likely be down to around 2,350 million pounds, or about 200 
million pounds less than in mid-1965. It should be realized that 
the surplus was built up over a period of three or four years, 
and it must be taken off at about the same rate to prevent an 
economic repercussion. 

The acreage-poundage program which was approved by 73.7 
percent of the growers voting in a referendum in May of 1965 
called for a quota of 1,126 million pounds in 1965. However, 
growers marketed only 1,060 million pounds. This drop below 
the quota was due directly to the fact that the change to acreage- 
poundage came late in the season after many farmers had 
planted their crops. Therefore, they could not take advantage of 
the acreage restored in the switch from a straight acreage con- 
trol to the acreage-poundage program. More than 40,000 acres 
of the 607,000 alloted under acreage-poundage last year went 
unplanted. If growers had planted closer to their allotments last 
year, with a national flue-cured yield of 1,933 pounds per acre, 
they would have marketed about 105 percent of the 1965 quota. 

Stabilization Stocks 

The Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corpora- 
tion started reducing its stocks in 1965 from the record level of 
958 million pounds held on January 1 of last year. Sales by 
Stabilization during 1965, which amounted to 152 million pounds, 
were the largest since 1961. This reduced Stabilization's stocks 
to 877 million pounds on January 1, 1966, including 71 million 
pounds received from the 1965 crop. 

Stabilization incorporated two changes in their sales policy 
for 1966 in order to take advantage of the current world market 
situation. The first change was to offer certain specified inven- 
tories to the trade on sealed bids with Stabilization retaining 
the right to reject unacceptable bids. Tobacco offered in this 
categoi-y includes all I'emaining stocks of the 1957 crop, and 
the export grades from the 1958 and 1959 crops. The total 
amount offered on sealed bids amounted to about 57.5 million 
pounds. All of this tobacco is offered on a "where is, as is" basis 
with no recourse upon Stabilization. 

In order to further encourage exports, the second change in 
sales policy involved a $5 per hundred refund to any exporter 
on any grades of tobacco exported from the 1960, 1961 and 1962 
crops. In this transaction, exporters must submit documented 
proof of exportation to qualify for the refund. 



During the first two months of 1966, Stabilization sold 44 
million pounds of tobacco which was more than double the 
amount sold for the same period in 1965. This brought Stabili- 
zation's stocks down to 833 million pounds on March 1, and the 
prospects for moving large volumes during the remainder of this 
year are very good. Furthermore, the acreage-poundage quotas 
should continue to hold Stabilization's receipts from the 1966 
and future crops to a minimum, which should prevent large 
volumes of loan stocks from building up again in future years. 

Domestic and Export Use 

The total domestic and export disappearance of flue-cured 
for the 1965-66 market year is estimated at 1,260 million pounds. 
This is a gain of approximately 41 million pounds or three per- 
cent above the total use in 1964-65. 

The domestic use of flue-cured during the year ahead is ex- 
pected to show a continuous increase based on the current trend 
in the cigarette industry. Cigarette production in 1965 made a 
remarkable recovery from the tailspin of 1964 caused by the 
Surgeon General's Report, and set a new record of 561 billion 
pieces. If this upward trend continues through 1966, there 
should be further increases in domestic use of flue-cured during 
the 1966-67 market year. 

The cigarette labeling act, which went into effect January 1, 
1966 requiring that all cartons and packs of cigarettes carry a 
health warning, has had no noticeable effect on consumption. In 
fact, the tactics of anti-tobacconists seem to have shifted from 
health warnings to that of taxing cigarettes to death. The biggest 
threat to the domestic cigarette consumption today is the con- 
tinuous upward spiral in state and local taxes, which range from 
2.5 cents to 11 cents per pack. 

Flue-cured growers took a giant step forward toward improv- 
ing their export position in 1965 when they voted to accept 
acreage-poundage quotas. Because of the improvements in qual- 
ity and usability of the 1965 crop, there was a noticeable increase 
in export demand during the marketing season. Even though 
purchases were larger, export shipments during the last half of 
1965 were about 11 percent behind the volume moved during 
the same period a year earlier. But export movement during the 
first half of 1966 is expected to more than offset this drop. There- 
fore, the exports of flue-cured for the full 1965-66 market year 



I 



is expected to be considerably above the 444 million pounds 
exported in 1964-65. 

If the current unsettled situation in Rhodesia continues, the 
1966-67 export demand is expected to show a substantial in- 
crease over the average exports for the past several years. How- 
ever, any gains made in the export market because of bans by 
many countries on the purchase of the 1966 Rhodesian crop will 
probably be a shoi't term gain of about one season's duration. If 
and when an agreement is reached in Rhodesia, that country 
will likely have a surplus of cheap tobacco that it will push into 
the world market in competition with U. S. flue-cured tobacco. 

Market Outlook 1966 

United States flue-cured tobacco growers will sell more to- 
bacco during the 1966 marketing season than in 1965 because 
most growers will plant closer to their allotted acres under 
acreage-poundage quotas. Practically all growers in 1965 pro- 
duced their allotted yields per acre, but fell short in their total 
quota because they could not plant all of the acres restored with 
the approval of acreage-poundage in May. These growers will 
plant closer to their allotments in 1966. Furthermore, to remove 
the strain in counties where growers will estimate their acreage 
in 1966, a 10 percent tolerance will be allowed. This permits a 
grower to over-estimate his acreage as much as 10 percent with- 
out being penalized. 

Therefore, barring a disaster, flue-cured growers should have 
no trouble at all producing the 1966 quota of 1,126 million 
pounds plus a 69 million pound balance brought forward from 
the 1965 crop. This brings the total U. S. allotted quota of flue- 
cured for 1966 to approximately 1,195 million pounds. Further- 
more, growers will be pei-mitted to sell 110 percent of the 1,195 
million pounds, which brings the potential sales of flue-cured for 
1966 to more than 1,300 million in contrast to sales of 1,060 
million pounds in 1965. So when the 1966 marketing season 
rolls around, buyers are likely to find an ample supply of most 
grades from which they can fill their orders. 

Even with a larger crop, the 1966 marketing season should 
find prices well in line with those paid during the 1965 season. 
This assumption is based on the anticipated strong export and 
domestic demand during the 1966 marketing season plus the 

(Continued on page 23) 



Burley Situation and Outlook-1966 

North Carolina's 18,000 burley tobacco growers experienced 
one of their best auction seasons last year. They recorded an all 
time high average of $66.86 per hundred with price hikes of 
$1.00-$11.00 for some grades. Volume of sales were down about 
four million pounds from the previous year due to weather con- 
ditions which produced a thinner bodied smoking crop and a 10 
percent reduction in acreage for 1965. However, the dollar value 
of the 1965 crop was only slightly less than the $12 million re- 
ceived for the 1964 crop because of the $10 per hundred increase 
in average price. 

The burley support price for 1966 has been determined by 
the Secretary of Agriculture to be 60.6 cents which is two per- 
cent higher than last year. This reflects the continuous increase 
in cost of production. Although the support price will be higher 
for 1966, there is no guarantee that prices will average as high 
as in 1965 because of the large supply of burley on hand. Fur- 
thermore, there is less chance of reducing the total supply in 
1966 since burley acreage-poundage quotas were rejected. 

Total 1965-66 burley supply is 2,026 million pounds or approxi- 
mately 3.3 years' supply. Although down from the 3.5 years' 
ratio of 1964-65, the 1965-66 indicated ratio is still substantially 
above 2.8, determined by law as the desirable ratio for burley 
tobacco. The fact that the average yield in 1965 was the second 
highest on record — topped only in 1963 — prevented any signifi- 
cant drop in the 1965-66 supply. 

During the year ended September 30, 1965, domestic dis- 
appearance of burley, calculated from stocks, production and 
foreign trade data, was 560 million pounds, a jump of 46 million 
above the previous year. Burley exports at 56 million pounds 
were about one million pounds below the 1963-64 record. Foreign 
competitors such as Rhodesia, Greece, Mexico and Japan con- 
tinue to increase their production hoping to enter the market 
on a price advantage. 

On March 10, North Carolina burley growers voted by a bare 
two-thirds majority favoring the acreage-poundage referendum. 
However, beltwide, the referendum received only a 57 percent 
favorable vote — far short of the required two-thirds. As a result 

(Continued on page 24) 



Marketing Flue-Cured Tobacco Under 
Acreage-Poundage Quotas 

The process of marketing flue-cured tobacco from the farm 
through the complex channels of trade, often leaves many farm- 
ers stranded on an island of confusion. Much of the confusion is 
due to the highly technical world that surrounds him. This situa- 
tion makes it a necessity that the grower have a general knowl- 
edge of the current market trends and buying patterns as they 
relate to the sequence of marketing various curings and to the 
amount of farm sorting necessary under acreage-poundage 
quotas in order to obtain the highest price per pound. He should 
also know the meaning of terms used by the trade such as 
"quality" and "usability." In addition to this trade knowledge, a 
grower should have a general understanding of the U. S. Stand- 
ard Grades and the interwoven relationship between the support 
prices attached to the standards and the market value of tobacco 
offered for sale. 

Quality 

The question of quality in tobacco has become a debatable one 
in recent years. The quality question has caused much confusion 
in the minds of growers, and no doubt it has caused many farm- 
ers to fall down on the job of properly preparing their tobacco 
for market. This situation is understandable because of the 
complexity of the quality factor. Tobacco quality is made up of 
many complex components closely related to the physical, chemi- 
cal and economical aspects of the leaf, which make it desirable 
or undesirable for a specific use. 

Thus, we find that the term "quality" as used in the tobacco 
trade today has many meanings. For instance, the definition of 
quality as outlined in the specifications of the U. S. Standard 
Grades goes in one direction based primarily on physical char- 
acteristics; while the buying companies' idea of quality quite 
often goes in a different direction, with each company having a 
different definition for quality which is closely related to eco- 
nomics and the purpose for which the tobacco will be used. 

Therefore, "quality" to the tobacco trade has become more or 
less a nebulous term. Good tobacco does not mean the same thing 
to all leaf buyers. Some purchasers look for certain characteris- 
tics in their tobacco that other buyers carefully avoid as being 
undesirable. For this reason most buying companies have sub- 
stituted the term "usability" in the place of "quality." 

10 




11 



Usability 

Now, what do purchasers of tobacco mean when they say that 
they want "usable" tobacco? First of all, usable tobacco can be 
tobacco from any U. S. Standard Grade depending on the specific 
purpose for which the tobacco will be used. However, our pri- 
mary interest with flue-cured is in the kind of tobacco that 
domestic and export companies consider usable in the manu- 
facture of cigarettes. Thus, the category termed "usable" to- 
bacco can come from a wide range of grades from all of the 
major groups of flue-cured tobacco, which are commonly known 
as priming, lug, cutter, leaf and smoking leaf. 

Based on the buying pattern of the 1965 season and the cur- 
rent market trend, the characteristics that seem to make tobacco 
most desirable and usable are found in the varous grades of 
medium to thin body with open grain, thoroughly ripe so as to 
be a little on the fluffy side, with full flavor and aroma. Tobacco 
of this nature usually has good cigarette filling capacity and 
burning qualities, and it is considered quite usable by most manu- 
facturers. However, in order for growers to receive the highest 
market prices for this tobacco, it must be properly prepared into 
uniform lots for market. 

Preparation and Marketing Practices 

A farmer who has worked hard all the year and has applied 
all of the skills and know-how to produce a good usable crop of 
tobacco cannot afford to become careless at market time. Under 
poundage quotas, there is nowhere in the process of handling 
a crop of tobacco where a few extra hours will pay more divi- 
dends than in the time spent in properly preparing tobacco for 
market. 

Based on the preceeding definition of quality and usability, we 
conclude that the amount of farm sorting necessary in order for 
a grower to obtain the highest market price for his offerings is 
determined by the current market demand. However, in recent 
years most tobacco growers have learned from experience that 
the standard grade placed on a basket of tobacco determines to a 
great extent the price that he receives for that lot of tobacco. 
Therefore, it is very important that every tobacco farmer pre- 
pare his tobacco for market so that it will meet the requirements 
for the highest possible standard grade in order to get the highest 
possible price. 

12 



Some farm sorting is necessary under acreage-poundage quotas in order to get 
the highest possible price per pound. 

It is essential that growers realize the cold fact that the 
tolerance for off -color or off -quality tobacco in a straight grade 
is very small in many instances. For example, the tolerance for 
red tobacco having a scorched characteristic is only 10 percent, 
which means that an average of only two or three of these 
leaves per bundle in any lot of lemon (L) or orange (F) color 
tobacco will drop it into a variegated mixed color (KM) grade. 
The (KM) grades carry support prices that range from 10 to 15 
cents per pound less than the straight lemon or orange grades, 
and they usually result in a corresponding drop in the auction 
price. 

In the case of variegated leaves of (KL) , (KF) , (KV) tobacco 
and slick leaves of (LS), (FS) and green (G) immature tobacco, 
the tolerance is 20 percent of these leaves in a straight grade. 
There again, it takes only about four or five leaves of this off- 

(Continued on page 30) 



13 



State Sum ma ry-1 965-66 

North Carolina flue-cured tobacco growers completed their first market- 
ing season under acreage-poundage quotas with many growers happier 
with the program by the time the season was over than they were at the 
beginning. About 60 percent of the tobacco growers in North Carolina came 
up short of their 1965 quotas due to the growing season and the fact that 
many farmers did not plant all of their alloted acreage. However, the 
rmoking quality and usability of the crop was the best offered in a number 
of years. 

According to U. S. Standards, the volume of the crop grading in good 
and fair qualities increased to 49 percent of the crop in contrast to 41 per- 
cent the previous year. There was a drop in the volume of poor and low 
qualities, and only eight percent of the crop fell into nondescript grades 
compared to 14 percent in 1964. The color of the crop improved with more 
of the crop going into straight Lemon and Orange grades with variegated 
(K) grades showing a decline to 24 percent in contrast to 30 percent the 
previous year. The percentage of the crop grading into mellow-ripe and 
over-ripe .smoking leaf (H) grades doubled during the 1965 marketing 
season. 

The 44 flue-cured markets in North Carolina sold for producers 651,525,- 
240 pounds of tobacco during the 1965 season for an average price of 
$64.09 per hundred. Total returns to growers from these sales dropped to 
$417,585,147 in contrast to $519,672,463 received for the 1964 sales of 
899,347,616 pounds. The average price received by growers in 1965 was an 
increase of $6.31 above the $57.78 received in 1964. But, even with the in- 
crease in price, there was a loss of $102,087,316 because of the 247,822,376 
pounds drop in volume. 

Price support continued to be available in 1965 on untied gradis of prim- 
ings, lugs and the best nondescript from those grades during the first seven 
days of sales in each belt. A total of nine market holidays were called dur- 
ing the marketing season due to congestion in some processing plants. 

Type 13 — Sales on the eight North Carolina Border Belt markets began 
August 5, 1965. Higher grade prices and improved quality of offerings 
pushed the average price near the record level of 1961. Practically all 
grades were up $1 to $3 per hundred over 1964. Many variegated and green 
lugs and green primings went up $4 to $9 while nondescript jumped up $5 
to $14. 

Producers sold 154,189,734 pounds in 1965 for a return of $101,045,590 
which gave them a season average of $65.53 per hundred. In 1964 Border 
Belt growers sold 165,688,468 pounds for $97,646,067 averaging $58.93 per 
hundred for the season. 

Sales ended on October 14 after operating for 41 sales days. Marketing 
holidays were in eff'ect nine days because of congested conditions in some 
processing plants. The Border Belt operated for 43 sales days in 1964. 

Type 12 — Eastern Belt markets started 1965 sales on August 25, two 
days earlier than the previous season. A much stronger demand and im- 
proved quality of eastern flue-cured tobacco caused a reversal in trends in 
the general average price and government loan receipts compared with 
recent years. Volume of sales was the smallest in 22 years and gross value 
$49.5 million dollars less than in 1964. Overall, grade prices averaged $1 
to $7 per hundred above last year. Largest gains occurred chiefly for 

14 



variegated and green leaf, lugs, and primings of green color and nonde- 
script. 

Volume of sales was 296,024,450 pounds compared to 420,093,250 pounds 
in 1964. The dollar value of $187,386,497 compared poorly to $238,216,548 
in 1964. Average price in 1965 was $63.30, $6.59 above 1964. 

The sales season ended on November 5 after 42 days of auctions com- 
pared to 49 days the pi-evious year. 

Type IIB — Middle Belt auctions began September 8 with offerings com- 
posed of larger percentages of fair and good qualities and less poor and 
nondescript grades than in 1964. Middle Belt markets experienced a 38 
percent drop in sales volume during the season. Grade prices generally 
averaged $1 to $5 higher than last year. Here again low primings and 
nondescript showed substantial gains. 

The 1965 volume and dollar value of producer sales in the Middle Belt 
were the lowest since 1957. Growers sold 108,026,541 pounds of tobacco for 
$68,444,459 averaging $63.36 per hundred. In 1964 producers sold 177,578,- 
510 pounds for $104,985,097 for a season average of $59.12. 

Middle Belt markets were open 41 sales days. However, nearly two-thirds 
of the crop was sold within the first 15 days. In 1964 the Middle Belt selling 
season extended over a period of 48 days. 

Type llA — The nine North Carolina Old Belt markets began sales on 
September 20 and operated for two days before all sales were suspended 
for five days due to congestion in processing plants. Producers received for 
their 1965 crop the highest general average price ever paid for their tobacco. 
Despite the high average, volume of sales and value received were the 
smallest since 1957 and 1960 respectively. The improved crop quality 
here was due to a sharp decrease in the percentage of nondescript. Bulk of 
sales consisted of low to good leaf, fair lugs, nondescript and low smoking 
leaf. 

Old Belt growers received a record average price of $65.08 per hundred 
for their 1965 sales of 93,284,515 pounds which returned them a gross 
value of $60,708,601 for the season. This compares with 135,987,388 pounds 
in 1964 which brought $78,824,751 for an average of $57.96 per hundred. 

Old Belt markets closed on December 7 after 46 days of auction sales 
which was four days less than the 1964 season. 

Type 31 — The three burley markets in North Carolina at Asheville, 
Boone and West Jefferson opened for the 1965-66 marketing season on 
November 29. The 1965 crop of burley in North Carolina consisted mostly 
of medium to thin body tobacco, which made it one of the best cigarette 
crops in a number of years. A larger percentage of the crop graded into 
fine and good (2nd and 3rd) quality grades when compared to the previous 
year. The percentage of the crop going under government loan amounted 
to less than four percent compared to about 15 percent last year. This was 
the smallest amount going under loan in four years. 

Growers selling on North Carolina markets received a record high aver- 
age of $67.00 per hundred for their offerings in contrast to $56.87 the 
previous year. The volume of producer sales dropped to 15,614,115 pounds 
compared to 18,591,150 the year before. However, the dollar value of 
$10,460,713 compared very favorably with the $10,572,368 received from the 
1964 sales. 

The three North Carolina markets held final sales of the 1965-66 season 
on January 7, 1966 covering a period of 20 sales days. The season covered 
22 days the previous year. 

15 



co"^as^ocoico^ 



C<lC<l0it>O'^<MO00'-lt-t-lAi-(t-C00i 



'^mmcov^icirsm ] la 



icuiioioicu^ioiommiAiAiooioirsirt |io 






«5(MO:itDi— ifX^'^'Xi j"^ 



CO •-' CO I t- 



■^(NCJOOCO-^'^'X'TJ'IM^TJ'OOOO^DOO 

OOi--r.-HOLOC<rOCOCOtOC>GO^ '^crS ''^J^OO 
t>tr--^-^COCnCMOt-OCOC-iO(M(MCO-^ 



rH.-Hi-l(Ni-l^l£Si-'ir3C<li-l^'-''-('-<C 



i-l?£)lMt-OOU5^uO 
(M'^'^I^OO'-HOOiO 

^ (m' CD lO r-i ^ <iD LO 



CO^T-lNt-(NO'^C<J-^lOlCOiHO^W 
T-H'-HrHCOCOC<i'^'--H^NcicOC<lNr4lOO 



- CO OS O U^ 00 



Tft-OOC-OlCOO IfH 

LOtN'^COCMCO'^'-t M^ 

N O LO ■^_Oi_iLn tr- ■^^ I t-;^ 

aTcoo^oo-^iOTjTt- \ oi 

?Dtr-t-cOu^Oc-JCO 00 

COOOtr-Ot-C-^OiO -^ 

lo c4" CO I u^r 



u:)i^t-Oo'^cMoo lo 

'^COCD'^OJ'^tr-^'^ ^ 



-:r"o5"(M"ir^co'^'"art>oco 1— «o:ioco^oi 



coaiicoc6-^'^LOcoo:ioouooOi-HtCioo<Nt:- 

tr- lO 00 (N tlD 00(lDi-HC0rHO500U0iocOU^00 

oart~^araroo.fa5050oooas t> t> oo ooio 



3(M':fiX'i-<OOOT-H00O(M'^00O00t0 

^i-i(M<X5a^^ooocoi^oot-tDaiO'-io^ 

/oTfoO'-n'ooc^TiccM tDooo;>io CiOi'-i oo 
■^■^coi— it-cot-'X'toc^ooooooaic^oco 



coco'XJ-^cDiccoooit^'^cooit-ii^MCO |o 

00-^cOCO00i-llO«O(M^'-HO5(N00i-;C0l^ CO 

i-^oi(>icococo'^'-H(>icviocooi(Ni-Hu^o co 



16 






CO co" 
00 m 



t-^ 00 c- o ^ 
lO CO c- IM 05 "= 
OT 00_ Tj<_ CO_^ 00__ f~> 
[^ lO t^ yj t— ^ 
05 Oi CO Oi CM ^ 
05 ^O^ -^ t- O 
•,^/^i .^^^co 
CO iH CO 



in t; -!-> T o •-- ^ 



CO(MOOOOiCD-<*COCqOOS^a5'^-^THO 
CDT-Hi-lt>OOi(NtHlOU500tOO(N05050 
O ^ ,-1 c<I :0 00 CD 00 00 CO CO O^ 00^ "^^ 00 05^ 00 

o 00 00 t> i-Tio tD^T-Too o"co o -^ oo m 00 00 

O^ir^CDi-Ht-OOOtr^fMCDCDOfMCDlOi-HCO 
'~*O<NfM0^CDt-ir3C<I00l0"^C0tMO'-Hl0 



^ c 



Q) O "' 



m ° _ 

° c c t:2 



■SSljSaic-SJJ-SS'SMSSrS.S 
;::^ 3 cc o t.-— o o c rat-»^-..^-fcb»b»t>. 



Ttco^j^'-iosm'-icooco lo:) 



in)iOkOir5(£)iciouou^ir3 |ir5 



T-H T? W C^^ O "^ Ol ^^ Tt L-; CO 



O t>; T-H '-] CO 
06 ^ id CD t> 
UD ic 10 I 10 10 



CDOO-^'^OtPOOOOOiX''^ 
OOi-HOOtr-COOO^uitiCO 
(XJ Tj^^ CO 10 Oi_ ai_ CO <N t- CN^ 

ciLor--coiOcotocoi/:i"^ 

10 tr~^ C^__ (M^ T-H in t~^ O 00 i-J^ 
O CD TjT csf o' oT CO CO O CO 
r-l -^ COtMi-HC^r-H-H 



OOlMOCOOOrHTtM 



(N'X'CNC0'X)tr-Ot--^ 
1X3^ O O^ OJ^ C^^ O LO^ en IJ^ 

O 00 i-T Cd" C^ CO CO 00" CO 



rH rH ,-1 CO 



eg 00 «D 

C- 1J5 00 

0;) oToo" 
CTi 00 00 
'3<__ 05^ oo_ 

rH ^■' Tf" 


to a> 
^ to 

t- 00 

COM 



ocoo^osc»t-t>ocoo I 10 

OCOlCNC<|OOlOOit-^t> O 

rHi-HCOoi'^COi-H'NCOO CO 



OiWOiCD^lC'^fCDOO li-HCO 



tOCOCDCOCDCDCDCOCO OCD 



•-0 CO CD CD CD 



^ (M-^OCOCDCDOOtMOO 
COt-tNOi-HCOCDCOmc^l 
CO^ -^^ M C5_ i-H CD O^ 1-H [-__ rH^ 

^ c^*'uo irrcD'"orco'"o'o tr^io 
0-1 (M OS CO CO 00 r-l 00 ai XJ t 



G^ .-HO] rH 



OJ-^W'^OOOOCDCOIOIO 
OCOCDOt-CO-— iiOCDCO 
OiOOfMCOt-OOt^-GOO 



lOfNCDCDlOOamOSCOt— 
C0iOCO"^C^CDOi^O5C0 
tXM 00^ 05_a) CO 1-H^-^ T-H 



lOrHCDUDinOOOOOiCD 



(MOitMOCO-^OCOUD 
(Mlr-O5Cv3-<^C^t-Q000 
OSCOC-OOCDCDO-^CO 



- LC ^ '^OO 



OOlr-WLraiMtr-OOTl^OlCOCD »J -"^OOCDOOmOOiHiOO 



CDCDCDiOCOCDCDcDCDCD CD 



00 t> 

O CD 



CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD CDCD 



00 CO CD 

Cl, ^ C3 Oi 
C lO^CO^OO^ 

^ o'co'co" 



CD^CO^ 

oTco 

05 10 



CO i-< 



Q 






M 






OS 






t) 













Bh 


(N 


01 <M 








-f 


'S' CO 00 


■0 10 




CO rH 10 


CO c- 




(M CO to 


(N t- 


H 


CO^CO "^ 


rH a 


.J 


t— 


01 to 


H 






n 






>- 






M 






-1 






ui 


CO CO -31 




hJ 


00 c- 


rH 


cc 


C- C- Tt 


t>-^ 



CD CD CD CD CD 



OOOOOSOOOO'^'^tr-CO 
CO'** i>coi> coc^^-^ '^'^ 
CD cocC^o coio"-^ cTcooo 

OO-^-rfOSCDiOOOTtt-CO 

cOi-H^tr-asoo ""i^C^ "^"^ 

iO-rfCO 10 oT t> CD CD t- 



COOOiOOO^i-HlO-Tji 
OOCOOiOOlOIMi-HO^iiO 



(MO'<:t<COCDt-i-iOCD 
Oa^^OOCOT-nCDrHOJcO 
■^ CD_t> Oi^OO C^iniOCO 

iS^o coco t>oo odinrH 



10 o 
10 w 



VO 00 (M 
to to 00 
CO__OT t^ 

to'c-^oT 

00 OlIM 
rH C» -* 

oTc^Tco"" 


in 10 

rH iO 

rH CO_ 
"* 01" 
rH CO 
tD_rH 
10" I> 
rH to 



CO, >-g^ I 

^h3^ t< 2.^-2 o<S S 

-5; O Q W E^ ffi J O W ^ 



5 g >.^ ^"/ 3 

3!Hj3aj*^So^;r 00 



<;pq^ 



17 



Summary of N. C. Dealer and 
Warehouse Resales — 1965 

Belt Pounds Dollars 

Border Belt 

Dealer 3,243,969 

Warehouse 12,238,792 

Eastern Belt 

Dealer 4,541,129 

Warehouse 13,395,517 

Middle Belt 

Dealer 2,681,310 

Warehouse 6,253,550 

Old Belt 

Dealer 2,114,006 

Warehouse 9,685,617 



Total Flue-Cured Resales 54,153,890 

Burley Belt 

Dealer 611,708 

Warehouse 1,511,964 



Total Burley Resales 2,123,672 



1,843,949 


1.9 


7,761,619 


7.2 


2,492,515 


1.4 


7,875,482 


4.3 


1,512,137 


2.3 


3,783,309 


5.3 


1,233,982 


2.0 


6,376,941 


9.2 


32,879,934 


7.7 


395,696 


3.4 


992,902 


8.5 


1,388,598 


12.0 



Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured 
Tobacco by States — 1965 





Producer 


Sales 


Gross Sales 




state 


Pounds 


Averaffe 


Pounds 


Average 


N. C. 


651,525,240 


$64.09 


704,679,130 


$63.83 


Va. 


128,920,106 


64.65 


136,751,794 


64.45 


S. C. 


122,820,507 


65.61 


137,421,325 


65.32 


Ga. 


137,278,128 


66.08 


152,095,784 


65.89 


Fla. 


17,773,790 
. 1,058,317,771 


67.09 


20,063,531 
1,151,011,564 


66.98 


Total . 


$64.65 


$64.47 



18 



Stabilization Receipts by Belts — 1965 



Belt 




Type 


Producer 
Sales (lbs.) 


stabilization 
Receipts (lbs.) 


Per 

Stab. 


centage 
Received 


Old Belt 
Middle Belt 
Eastern Belt 
Border Belt 
Ga.-Fla. Belt 

Total 


llA 

IIB 

12 

13 

14 

11-14 


222,204,621 
108,026,541 
296,024,450 
277,010,241 
155,051,918 

1,058,317,771 


21,205,778 

9,568,874 

19,371,356 

18,794,024 

2,380,288 

71,320,320 




9.5 
8.9 
6.5 
6.8 
1.5 

6.7 



Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of 
North Carolina 



state 


N. C. Tobacco 

(Pi 
1965 


Sold 
aunds 


Out of State 

i) 

1964 


Out of State Toba 
(Pou 

1965 


nds)' 


Sold in N. C. 
1964 


Va. 

s. c. 

Ga. 
Fla 


36,884,113 

15,378,431 

6,014,602 

11,420 




54,004,372 

14,828,958 

2,480,800 

80,938 


7,604,100 
12,749,416 




11,119,919 

13,475,875 


464 
1,364 

20,355,344 




Ala 


1,332 








Total 


52,288,586 


71,395,068 


24,597,126 



Burley Tobacco Movement In and Out 
of North Carolina 



N. C. Tobacco Sold Out of State 

(Pounds) 

1965 1964 



of State Tobacco Sold 
(Pounds) 
1965 



Tenn. 
Va. 
W Va 


3,770,604 
1,482 


4,796,636 
2,238 


551,394 

1,359,643 

18,652 

53,032 

492 


1,265,042 

1,787,596 

30,710 

52,280 

1,724 


Ga 






S C 












Total 


3,772,086 


4,798,874 


1,983,213 


3,137,352 



19 



North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops 
1919-1965* 







Yield Per 












Acre 


Production 


Value 


Average 


Year 


No. Acres 


(Pounds) 


(1.000 lbs.) 


(1.000 Dollars) 


Price 


1919 


521,000 


612 


319,276 


$157,340 


$49.30 


1920 


621,900 


681 


423,703 


88,271 


20.80 


1921 


414,900 


594 


246,540 


60,402 


24.50 


1922 


444,000 


611 


271,170 


74,572 


27.50 


1923 


544,300 


728 


396,354 


81,998 


20.70 


1924 


473,500 


585 


276,819 


62,597 


22.60 


1925 


536,200 


696 


373,352 


83,756 


22.40 


1926 


546,700 


692 


378,274 


96,762 


25.60 


1927 


639,600 


755 


482,982 


100,414 


20.80 


1928 


712,400 


692 


493,132 


93,450 


19.00 


1929 


729,300 


665 


484,630 


89,470 


18.50 


1930 


768,000 


757 


581,200 


74,733 


12.90 


1931 


688,500 


692 


476,382 


42,024 


8.80 


1932 


462,500 


624 


288,750 


34,949 


12.10 


1933 


667,800 


794 


530,133 


85,530 


16.10 


1934 


486,500 


847 


412,055 


117,999 


28.60 


1935 


612,500 


635 


572,625 


116,418 


20.30 


1936 


591,000 


765 


451,975 


101,856 


22.50 


1937 


675,000 


883 


595,815 


143,058 


24.00 


1938 


603,500 


844 


509,470 


115,428 


22.70 


1939 


843,000 


964 


812,540 


123,893 


15.20 


1940 


498,000 


1,038 


516,835 


85,792 


16.60 


1941 


488.000 


928 


452,825 


132,291 


29.20 


1942 


539.000 


1,052 


566,810 


221,538 


39.10 


1943 


580,000 


935 


542,200 


219,074 


40.40 


1944 


684,000 


1,077 


736,990 


317,628 


43.10 


1945 


722,000 


1,100 


794,310 


349,148 


44.00 


1946 


802,000 


1,138 


912,970 


451,639 


49.50 


1947 


783,000 


1,139 


892,205 


374,513 


42.00 


1948 


594,000 


1,239 


739,380 


368,040 


49.80 


1949 


621,000 


1,178 


731,530 


352,508 


48.20 


1950 


640,000 


1,441 


858,140 


477,508 


55.60 


1951 


735,000 


1,331 


978,375 


523,358 


53.50 


1952 


735,000 


1,222 


898,090 


448,582 


49.90 


1953 


674.000 


1,235 


832,305 


447,076 


53.70 


1954 


686,000 


1,204 


889,490 


483,003 


54.30 


1955 


653,000 


1,499 


978,775 . 


520,845 


53.20 


1956 


579,000 


1,661 


961,495 


496,324 


51.60 


1957 


443,000 


1,469 


650,780 


358,442 


55.10 


1958 


429,000 


1,718 


736,855 


427,307 


58.00 


1959 


458,500 


1,533 


702,942 


407,055 


57.90 


1960 


457,500 


1,836 


839,870 


512,731 


61.10 


1961 


463,000 


1,797 


832,215 


541,468 


65.10 


1962 


483,000 


1,890 


912,810 


549,594 


60.20 


1963 


460,500 


1,999 


920,660 


535,622 


58.18 


1964 


416,000 


2,282 


949,450 


549,875 


57.90 


1965** 


375,000 


1,879 


704,700 


446,644 


64.10 



'Source: N. C- and USDA Crop Reporting Servi< 
* Preliminary for 1965. 



20 



North Carolina Burley Crops 
1928-1965* 







Yield Per 












Acre 


Production 


Value 


Average 


Tear 


No. Acres 


(Pounds) 


(1.000 lbs.) 


(1,000 Dollars) 


Price 


1928 


3,600 


650 


2,340 


$ 690 


$29.50 


1929 


5,500 


730 


4,015 


863 


21.50 


1930 


7,200 


750 


5,400 


853 


15.80 


1»31 


7,100 


710 


5,041 


464 


9.20 


1932 


6,500 


735 


4,778 


726 


15.20 


1933 


9,200 


785 


7,222 


715 


9.90 


1934 


5,500 


870 


4,785 


809 


17.50 


1935 


5,200 


925 


4,810 


1,025 


21.30 


1936 


6,000 


900 


5,400 


2,095 


38.80 


1937 


9,000 


975 


8,775 


1,787 


21.40 


1938 


8,600 


900 


7,740 


1,308 


16.90 


1939 


8,100 


1,070 


8,667 


1,447 


16.70 


1940 


6,500 


1,050 


6,825 


1,242 


18.20 


1941 


6,200 


1,075 


6,665 


2,093 


31.40 


1942 


6,600 


1,150 


7,590 


3,211 


42.30 


1943 


8,500 


1,225 


10,412 


5,102 


49.00 


1944 


12,000 


1,390 


16,680 


8,157 


48.90 


1945 


13,000 


1,500 


19,500 


7,568 


38.30 


1946 


9,800 


1,475 


14,455 


5,999 


41.50 


1947 


9,600 


1,560 


14,976 


6,335 


42.30 


1948 


10,300 


1,680 


17,304 


8,012 


46.30 


1949 


10,800 


1,440 


15,552 


6,750 


43.40 


1950 


10,500 


1,700 


17,850 


9,175 


51.40 


1951 


12,200 


1,750 


21,350 


11,572 


54.20 


1952 


12,000 


1,680 


20,160 


9,818 


48.70 


1953 


11,400 


1,800 


20,520 


11,019 


53.70 


1954 


12,700 


1,920 


24,384 


12,680 


52.00 


1955 


9,800 


1,900 


18,620 


10,651 


57.20 


1956 


9,400 


1,850 


17,390 


10,747 


61.80 


1957 


9,600 


1,975 


18,960 


11,073 


58.40 


1958 


9,300 


2,000 


18,600 


11,978 


64.40 


1959 


9,800 


2,060 


20,188 


11,426 


56.60 


1960 


9,500 


1,940 


18,430 


12,016 


65.20 


1961 


10,400 


2,090 


21,736 


14,346 


66.00 


1962 


11,000 


2,185 


24,035 


14,421 


60.00 


1963 


11,000 


2,285 


25,135 


13,573 


54.00 


1964 


9,700 


2,165 


21,000 


12,054 


57.40 


1965** 


9,000 


1,934 


17,403 


11,660 


67.00 



•Source: N. C. and USDA Crop Reportmg Service. 
** PPeliminary for 1965 with value based on market average. 



21 



N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments 
1966 



County 


No. Farms 


Acreage 


Poundage 


Rank 


Alamance 


1,429 


3,982.99 


6,625,304 


36 


Alexander 


946 


1,141.21 


1,773,408 


51 


Anson 


252 


332.99 


485,959 


61 


Beaufort 


2,308 


8,061.95 


14,148,202 


22 


Bertie 


1,680 


4,805.62 


9,018,510 


30 


Bladen 


3,089 


6,269.31 


11,902,451 


26 


Brunswick 


1,699 


2,796.57 


5,313,903 


39 


Burke 


1 


0.48 


829 


68 


Cabarrus 


1 


0.02 


14 


71 


Caldwell 


264 


405.44 


687,954 


59 


Camden 


2 


3.95 


8,166 


65 


Carteret 


343 


1,139.67 


2,000,237 


50 


Caswell 


1,913 


7,774.61 


13,182,196 


24 


Catawba 


3 


3.20 


4,090 


66 


Chatham 


1,038 


2,423.42 


3,557,928 


47 


Chowan 


184 


462.90 


814,125 


58 


Cleveland 


1 


0.29 


505 


69 


Columbus 


4,488 


13,980.96 


31,116,139 


4 


Craven 


1,671 


7,199.96 


13,216,307 


23 


Cumberland 


2,384 


4,515.38 


8,477,300 


33 


Dare 


1 


0.06 


68 


70 


Davidson 


1,830 


2,754.05 


4,295,539 


44 


Davie 


816 


984.35 


1,421,375 


55 


Duplin 


4,144 


13,080.14 


24,689,356 


11 


Durham 


943 


3,163.12 


4,747,935 


43 


Edgecombe 


1,445 


9,741.04 


19,329,819 


14 


Forsyth 


2,209 


4,085.25 


6,434,708 


37 


Franklin 


2,633 


9,647.92 


17,124,754 


17 


Gaston 


1 


3.88 


1,322 


67 


Gates 


122 


229.53 


410,459 


62 


Granville 


2,149 


11,310.00 


19,026,980 


15 


Greene 


1,223 


10,141.87 


21,145,709 


13 


Guilford 


3,154 


7,673.94 


12,716,245 


25 


Halifax 


2,068 


4,986.48 


9,444,047 


29 


Harnett 


3,343 


12,239.39 


24,694,846 


10 


Hertford 


906 


2,758.42 


5,081,200 


40 


Hoke 


734 


2,165.08 


3,976,667 


46 


Iredell 


806 


1,031.89 


1,538,042 


53 


Johnston 


5,191 


19,300.81 


38,726,011 


2 


Jones 


880 


4,595.52 


8,584,578 


32 


Lee 


1,290 


3,475.95 


6,177,291 


38 


Lenoir 


1,842 


11,941.91 


24,586,333 


12 


Martin 


1,452 


7,221.00 


14,955,215 


20 


Montgomery 


401 


815.44 


1,232,674 


57 


Moore 


1,541 


4,144.94 


7,240,909 


35 


Nash 


2,837 


15,353.28 


30,059,169 


6 


New Hanover 


84 


180.07 


287,744 


63 


Northampton 


215 


402.70 


658,473 


60 


Onslow 


1,763 


5,276.63 


8,994,774 


31 


Orange 


944 


2,793.12 


4,785,110 


42 


Pamlico 


369 


928.16 


1,439,687 


54 


Pender 


1,630 


2,781.80 


5,003,511 


41 


Person 


1,743 


8,135.39 


14,520,679 


21 


Pitt 


2,599 


21,340.56 


41,700,895 


1 


Randolph 


1,603 


2,760.24 


4,231,559 


45 



22 



N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments 
1966 (Continued) 



County 


No. Farms 


Acreage 


Poundage 


Rank 


Richmond 


969 


1,760.42 


2,665,272 


48 


Robeson 


4,528 


17,513.88 


36,496,703 


3 


Rockingham 


2,952 


11,055.23 


18,808,054 


16 


Rowan 


23 


23.08 


29,522 


64 


Sampson 


5,035 


12,923.81 


25,849,974 


9 


Scotland 


518 


973.51 


1,649,246 


52 


Stokes 


2,762 


9,683.59 


15,588,658 


19 


Surry 


3,057 


9,277.59 


16,929,292 


18 


Vance 


1,365 


6,927.15 


11,624,791 


27 


Wake 


3,645 


16,456.99 


30,130,526 


5 


Warren 


1,784 


5,162.32 


8,156,129 


34 


Washington 


290 


813.56 


1,343,004 


56 


Wayne 


3,045 


12,299.27 


25,921,359 


8 


Wilkes 


934 


1,303.97 


2,092,564 


49 


Wilson 


2,056 


14,306.20 


29,398,300 


7 


Yadkin 


2,700 


6,828.72 


11,599,775 


28 


Unadjusted 








Total 


114,270 


400,054.14 


749,880,379 


1-71 


Under-marketing 1965 — 


38,219.51 


70,866,508 


— 


Over-marketing 1965 — 


7,863.98 


14,726,887 


— 










iNct unuer-iiitirKf^ 
1965 


- 


30,355.53 


56,139,621 


- 


N. C. Total Allotment 








1966 


114,270 


430,409.67 


806,020,000 


1-71 



Flue-Cured Outlook 

(Continued from page 8) 
fact that cost of production has pushed the farmers' support 
price up another 1.1 cents to the current level of 58.8 cents per 
pound. So, if growers can come up with another good smoking 
crop in 1966, their average price should hold around the 65 
cents per pound level. 

Thus, the economic outlook for U. S. flue-cured tobacco farm- 
ers is somewhat brighter for 1966 than it was a year earlier. It 
is quite possible that flue-cured growers will recover in 1966 
much of the $123 million loss that occurred in 1965. 



23 



^ 



N. C Burley Tobacco Allotments 
1966 







Acreage 




Coanty 


No. Farms 


Allotment 


Rank 


Alleghany 


528 


216.02 


9 


Ashe 


2,540 


1,047.70 


3 


Avery 


248 


108.50 


11 


Brunswick 


1 


0.09 


32 


Buncombe 


2,996 


1,392.69 


2 


Burke 


12 


4.47 


21 


Caldwell 


19 


6.75 


20 


Catawba 


1 


0.45 


29 


Cherokee 


196 


67.40 


15 


Clay 


219 


83.71 


12 


Cleveland 


9 


3.39 


22 


Davidson 


2 


0.97 


25 


Gaston 


1 


0.50 


28 


Graham 


702 


302.38 


8 


Granville 


1 


0.12 


31 


Haywood 


1,990 


954.77 


5 


Henderson 


113 


43.84 


16 


Iredell 


2 


0.95 


26 


Jackson 


291 


113.04 


10 


McDowell 


70 


25.20 


18 


Macon 


240 


76.42 


13 


Madison 


2,857 


2,058.44 


1 


Mitchell 


952 


469.09 


7 


Polk 


6 


1.75 


24 


Rutherford 


56 


25.03 


19 


Stokes 


2 


0.34 


30 


Surry 


7 


0.94 


27 


Swain 


218 


69.11 


14 


Transylvania 


71 


28.13 


17 


Watauga 


1,645 


724.90 


6 


Wilkes 


8 


2.04 


23 


Yancey 


1,832 


983.09 


4 


State Totals 


17,835 


8,812.22 


1-32 



USDA Asrricaltnre Stabilization and Gonservation Service. 



Burley Outlook 



(Continued from page 9) 
of the vote, the Secretary of Agriculture will apply the pre- 
viously announced 15 percent cut in total acres. 

With fewer acres in 1966, farmers will probably follow the 
customary practices of using more nitrogen, setting tobacco 
closer and using heavy yielding varieties so as to increase pro- 
duction enough to offset acreage cuts. All this will be at the 
sacrifice of producing top quality, usable tobacco demanded by 
both domestic and export trade. 



24 



North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses 
and Operators By Belts and Markets 

BORDER BELT 

Chadbourn (one set buyers) 

Producers — Jack W. Garrett, J. Franklin Bullard 
Green-Teachey — J. C. Green 

Clarkton (one set buyers) 

Bright Leaf — Joe Stephenson & Brothers 

New Clarkton Warehouse— J. M. Talley, J. C. Hartley 

Fair Bluff (one set buyers) 

Powell— A. H. Powell & Sons 

Riverside — Robert Musgrave, Aaron Parrish 

Planters — Carl Meares, Randolph Gun-in 

Fairmont (four sets buyers) 

People's Big 5 — E. J. Chambers, Yarboro & Garrett Company 

Davis & Mitchell — F. A. Davis, Harry and Jack Mitchell 

Holliday-Frye— E. H. Frye, J. W. and J. M. Holliday 

Planters No. 1 & 2— G. R. Royster, Daniel 

Square Deal 1-2-3— W. C. Bassett 

Star Carolina 1-2-3— W. M. Puckett, A. M. Best 

Liberty-Twin States— P. R. Floyd, Jr., Paul Wilson, F. P. Joyce, 

Joe Pell 
Big Brick— V. J. Griffin, A. D. Lewis, Jr. 

Fayetteville (one set buyers) 

Big Farmers 1 & 2 — P. L. Campbell, Sherrill Aiken 
Planters — J. W. Stephenson, J. C. Adams 

Lumberton (three sets buyers) 

Carolina — J. L. Townsend, Jr., James Johnson, Jr. 
Smith-Dixie — Furman Biggs, Sr. & Jr. 
Hedgpeth— R. A. Hedgpeth, R. L. Rollins 
Liberty — R. H. Livermore 
Star, Inc. — Hogan Teater, D. T. Stephenson 
Lumberton Cooperative — C. E. McLaurin, Mgr. 

Tabor City (one set buyers) 

By-Pass Carolina & New Farmers — R. C. Coleman, Mrs. Harriet Sikes 
Planters — Don Watson, Mgr. 

Whiteville (three sets buyers) 

Crutchfield— G.^E. & R. W. Crutchfield 

Lea's Big Dixie — William Townes Lea, Louie Love 

Moore's — A. H. Moore, C. C. Mason, C. F. JefTcoat 

Nelson's No. 1 & 2 — John H. Nelson, Jim Smith 

Planters No. 1 & 2— A. O. King, Jr., J. W. Peay 

Gray-Neal Farmers-Columbus County — A. Dial Gray, J. L. Neal 

Liberty — J. W. Hooks, L A. Barefoot & Sons 

Smith — Ernest Smith, Joe T. Smith, Jr., Percy McKeithan 

25 



EASTERN BELT 

Ahw liit (mne set bnyers) 

Basnie^t No. 1-2-3— L L. Wilkens. H. G. Veaiey 
Fanners No. 1 £ 2 — ^W. M. Odoms. Pierce & Winbome 

Clfaitsa (<Mie set bnyers) 

Carolina — L. D. Herring. C. J. Strickland, X. L. Daughtry 
Ross Xo. 2 — Clarence Kirven, Jr.. W. K. Beech 
Farmers— J. J. HiU. W. M. Buck 

Dma (one set buyers) 

Big 4 Warehoose — ^Tom &nothers. Jack Calhoun, Norman Hardee 
Planters — ^Leland Lee. J. M, Smothers 

Farmville (rwo sets buyers) 
Belis — Ben Brothers 

Fotmtain £ Monk Xo. 1 — John X. Fountain, Mgr. 
Fountain &. Monk Xo. 2 — John X. Fountain, Mgr. 

Planters & Prewits — Chester Worthington. W. O. Xewell. B. S. Correll 
Lee's — Gordon Lee 

Goldsboro <one set buyers) 

Carolina — S. G. Best, D. V. Smith. D. Price 
Farmers Xo. 1 — S. B. Hill, Carl Holloman, J. F. Hill 
Big Brick — J. B. Musgra'^e 
Victory — Richard Gray, Clarence Whitley 

GreenTiDe i&ve sets buyers > 

Cannon's — W. T. Cannon, Carlton Dail 

Farmers — W. A, Tripp, Dal Cox, T. P. Thompson 

Star-Planters — ^Harding Suggs 

Keel-^. A. Worthington 

New Independent — Bob Cullifer, F. L. Blount 

Raynor-Forbes — Xoah Raynor, A. H. Forbes 

Harris & Rogers — R. E. Rogers 

New Carolina — ^Larry Hudson, Laddie Avery. C. C. Harris 

KiBstoB (four sets buyers) 

Central — W. L Herring, Bill King 

Farmers — John T. Jenkins, L. E. Pollock 

Knotfs 1 & 2— H. G. Knott, W. E. Brewer 

New Dixie — John T. Jenkins, Mgr. 

Sheppard Xo. 1 — J. T. Sheppard 

Sheppard Xo. 2-^. T. Sheppard 

New Central— W. I. Herring, BUI King 

The Star Warehouse Xo. 2 — Dempsey Hodges 

Banner — K. W. Loftin, John Heath 

Brooks Warehouse — Roger Brooks. Jr., Frederick Brooks 

Robersonrille (one set buyers) 

Red Front-Adkins & Bafley — J. H. Gray. Jack Sharpe 
Planters Xo. 1 £ 2 — H. T. EBgfasmith, E. G. .\nderson 



26 



Rock J- Mount (tour sets buyers) 

Cobb & Carlton No. 1 & 2 — W. E. Cobb, J. C. Carlton 

MangTJm — Roy M. Phipps 

Planters No. 1-2-3 — W. H. Faulkner, Mgr. 

Smith No. 1 & 2 — James D. Smith 

Works Warehouse — R. J. Works, Jr. 

Peoples Warehouse Company, Inc. — Guy Barnes, Gene Simmons 

Farmers Warehouse. Inc. — J. C. Holt Evans. M^. 

Fenners — J. B. Fenner 
Smithfield itwo sets buyers I 

Big Planters — Mrs. W. A. Carter, Paul McMillan 

Farmers No. 1 & 2 — Joe & C. E. Stephenson 

Gold Leaf No. 1 & 2— R. A. Pearce 

Perkins Riverside — N. L. Perkins 

Wallace No. 1 & 2 — Lawrence & Dison Wallace 
Tarboro (one set buyers) 

Clarks No. 1 & 2— H. I. Johnson, S. A. McConkey 

Farmers No. 1 — W. L. House, J. P. Bunn 

Farmers No. 2 — W. L. House, J. P. Bunn 

Victory No. 1 & 2 — Cliff Weeks, W. L. Leggett 
Wallace 'one set buyers) 

Blar.jhard & Farrior — O. C. Blanchard, W. H. Farrior 

Hussey No. 1 & 3 — Joe Bryant, Bill Hussey 

Sheffield's — John Sheffield 

Farmers — H. G. Perry 
Washington (one set buyers) 

Sermon's — W. J. Sermons, J. E. Roberson 

Talley-Hassell— M. M. HasseU, W. G. Talley 
Wendell (one set buyers) 

Farmers — Roy Clark, Jr. 

Liberty 1 & 2 — Bubber & Berdon Eddins 

Nor-hside— G. Dean, Bill Sanders 

Eir.-er — C. P. Southerland 
Williamston (one set buyers) 

Rogers Warehouse — L'rbin Rogers, Russell Rogers, Leland Bamhill 

New Dixie — C. Fisher Harris. J. Elmo Lilley 
Wilson (five sets buyers* 

Big DLxie — E. B. Hicks, W. C. Thompson 

Wainwright — G. L. Wainwright 

Center Brick No. 1-2-3 — Cozart & Eagles Co. 

Growers Cooperative — S. E. Griffin, Mgr. 

New Planters No. 1 & 2— R. T. & W. C. Smith. B. S. Can- 
Smith Warehouse. Inc. — H. H. Harris, Jr., Mgr. 

Watson — W. H. Cozart. Jr., Pres. 

Clark's— C. R. & Boyd Clark 

New Liberty — Carl B. Renfro 

Bob's Warehouse — Bob Clark 
Windsor i one set buyers) 

Planters 1 & 2 — C. B. & B. U. Griffin. Dave Newsom 

Farmers 1 & 2 — Grover & B. H. Jemigan. Bill Davis 

27 



MIDDLE BELT 

Aberdeen (one set buyers) 

New Aberdeen — Tom Faulkner 

Planters — W. Fentriss Phillips 

Hardee's — Hugh T. Hardee 
Carthage (one set buyers) 

McConnells — C. Hoover Carter, R. J. Brim, Jr. 

Victory — Earl Ennis, Buck Layton 
Durham (three sets buyers) 

Liberty — Walker Stone, John W. Sears 

Roycroft— H. T. & J. K. Roycroft, Randolph Currin 

Star-Brick — A. L. Carver, Cozart, Currin 

Famers-Planters — J. M. Talley, Howard Talley, Bob Dale, Sam Mangum 
Ellerbe (one set buyers) 

Farmers — Bill Maurer 

Richmond County — Bud Rummage 
Fuquay-Varina (two sets buyers) 

Big Top— Talley Brothers, E. E. Clayton 

New Deal— W. M., A. R. & A. L. Talley 

Goldleaf— Sherrill Akins, J. W. Dale 

Carolina — P. L. Campbell 

Roberts — Joe, John & Earl Roberts 

Growers — King Roberts 

Dixie — King Roberts 

Star — King Roberts 
Henderson (two sets buyers) 

Moore's Big Banner — A. H. Moore, C. E. Jeffcoat 

Carolina— J. S. Royster, M. H. High, B. W. Young 

Farmers — W. J. Alston, Jr. 

High Price— C. J. Felming, C. B. Turner 

Liberty — George T. Robertson 

Ellington— F. H. Ellington & Sons 
Louisburg (one set buyers) 

Big Franklin— S. T. & H. B. Cottrell 

Ford's — Charlie Ford 

Friendly Four — James Speed, Gus McGhee 
Oxford (two sets buyers) 

Banner— W. L. Mitchell, Jr., David Mitchell 

Mangum-Farmers — Julian Adcock, S. B. Knott 

Fleming No. 1 & 2— G. B. Watkins, D. T. Currin 

Planters & Johnson — C. R. Watkins, C. R. Watkins, Jr. 

Owens No. 1 & 2— J. S. Watkins, L. Gregory 

Granville — L. S. Bryan, Jr., Sherman Bullock 

Yeargin — W. W. Yeargin 
Sanford (one set buyers) 

Twin City 1 & 2— W. M. Carter, T. V. Mansfield 

Morgan's — Jimmy Morgan 

Castleberry's — C. N. Castleberry 

Woods 3 W— Bill Wood, R. A. Owen 

28 



Warrenton (one set buyers) 
Boyd's— W. P. Burwell 

Centre No. 1 & 2— M. P. Carroll, E. W. Radford, E. M. Moody 
Farmers — E. G. Tarwater 
Thompson — C. E. Thompson 
Currin's No. 1 & 2— C. W. Currin 

OLD BELT 
Burlington (one set buyers) 

Carolina — Lee Russell, Bob Rainey 

Coble — N. C. Newman, Curry King 

Farmers — Bill McCauley, Glenn McCray 
Greensboro (one set buyers) 

Greensboro Tobacco Warehouse Co.— R. C. Coleman, Mgr. 

Guilford County Tobacco Warehouse Co.— H. P. Smothers, W. B. Hull 
Madison (one set buyers) 

New Brick— R. T. Chilton, S. F. Webster 

Carolina— R. T. Chilton, S. F. Webster 

Sharpe & Smith-Farmers— W. S. Smith, D. C. Hoilman, Banner 
Williams 
Mebane (one set buyers) 

Farmers 1 & 2 — Joe Dillard, Jule Allen 

New Piedmont — A. 0. King, Jr., Billy Hopkins, Hugh Strayhorn 
Mt. Airy (one set buyers) 

New Farmers— Tom Jones, Buck White, O. L. Badgett, F. V. Dearmin 

Hunters— J. W. & J. L. Hunter 

Dixie— W. H. Brown, H. G. Hodges 
Reidsville (one set buyers) 

Farmers— C. E. Smith, P. D. McMichael, D. H. Huffines 

Leader-Watts — A. P. Sands, W. A. McKinney 

Smothers— T. G. & J. M. Smothers 

Brown's— C. E. Smith, P. D. McMichael, D. H. Huffines 
Roxboro (one set buyers) 

Farmers — Lindsay Wagstaff, R. L. Hester 

Hyco — W. R. Jones, F. J. Hester, George Walker 

Foacre — H. W. Wlnstead, Jr., Pres. 

Planters No. 2— T. 0. Pass 

Winstead— T. T. & Elmo Mitchell 

Pioneer— T. T. & Elmo Mitchell 
Stoneville (one set buyers) 

Joyce's No. 1 & 2—0. P. Joyce, Gary Pell 

Joyce Brothers — W. Q. Chilton, G. 0. Joyce 

Piedmont — R. N. Linville 
Winston-Salem (four sets buyers) 

Brown — R. W. Newsome, W. B. Simpson 

Carolina-Star — G. H. Robertson, H. M. Bouldin 

Growers— Floyd Joyce, W. G. Sheets, J. R. Pell, M. M. Joyner 

Pepper No. 1 & 2 — F. L. Kellam, C. F. Hutchins, Joe & Baxter Cook 

Taylor— Paul Taylor 

Big Winston— R. T. & J. F. Carter 

Cooks No. 1 & 2 — B. E. Cook, William Fowler, Claude Strickland, Jr. 

29 



BURLEY BELT 

Asheville (two sets buyers) 

Burley-Dixie No. 1 & 2— R. A. Owen 
Planters No. 1 & 2— J. W. Stewart 
Walker Warehouse — James E. Walker 
Day's — Charlie Day 

Boone (one set buyers) 

Farmers & Big Burley — Joe E. Coleman 

West Jefferson (one set buyers) 

Tri-State Burley— C. C. Taylor, Rex Taylor 
Farmers Burley — Tom Faulkner, Hoover Carter 



Marketing 



(Continued from page 13) 
color or immature tobacco per bundle, or in untied tobacco about 
five leaves out of 25, to throvi^ a lot of tobacco out of a straight 
grade into a special factor grade. When this happens, it reduces 
the support price and usually the market average from 10 to 25 
cents per pound on the various grades. 

Therefore, as a minimum requirement in order to get the 
highest price per pound under the acreage-poundage quotas, 
every tobacco grower should at least sort out of each barn of to- 
bacco the green, red, slick, dead or other variegated off-color 
leaves that do not blend with a lot of tobacco. A fevi^ leaves 
removed from many lots of tobacco could increase the market 
value as much as $10 to $25 per hundred, in addition to making 
it more desirable and usable to the domestic and export trade. 

Sequence of Marketing 

Every year there are hundreds of tobacco farmers who lose 
thousands of dollars because they market perfectly good barns 
of tobacco at the wrong time of the season. The sequence in which 
the various curings of flue-cured tobacco from different positions 
on the stalk are marketed can make a great deal of difference in 
the price received for certain grades. 

It is always a good practice to follow the market pattern in 
offering the various curings, because buyers always have more 
orders for the kind of tobacco that makes up the bulk of the sale 

30 



in that particular belt. For example, during the first week or 
ten days of sale under normal market conditions in any belt, 
the bulk of the sale is usually made up of priming and lug 
grades. Thus, your major buyers will have order primarily for 
those grades of tobacco coming from the lower part of the stalk 
while they are moving in volume large enough to keep their re- 
drying facilities operating without switching grades and groups 
so often. Therefore, if a grower offers leaf tobacco from the 
upper part of the stalk during the first several days of sale, he 
very seldom, if ever, receives market value because it is usually 
bought by the warehouse or a speculator who holds it for resale 
after company buyers receive orders for leaf tobacco. 

In the past the marketing pattern followed by most growers 
was to start with their first two or three barns in the order 
that they were harvested. These barns usually consist of prim- 
ings, lugs, low cutters and the nondescript from those curings. 
After the tobacco from the lower part of the stalk was sold, 
most growers then moved to the tips and barns just under the 
tips which were usually in heavy volume by the third week of 
sales. From here most growers then dropped back to where they 
had left off" with their lugs and marketed the remainder of the 
barns in the order that they were harvested. 

However, under acreage-poundage quotas, this marketing pat- 
tern may be altered slightly, since most farmers will want to 
sell their best or highest price tobacco first so that their lowest 
price tobacco will be left in the packhouse if they should have 
any production beyond 110 percent of their quotas. Therefore, 
it is very likely that many growers in the future will hold back 
poor barns of primings and tips to be marketed last. But regard- 
less of the sequence of sale, the important factor is for each 
individual grower to follow as nearly as possible whatever mar- 
keting pattern he finds developing under the acreage-poundage 
program. 



31 



DOMESTIC CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION 
BY KINDS 1965 




Total Domestic Consumption 
515 Billion Cigarettes